Gun control: for or against? [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Jake Featherston

10-07-2011, 06:00 PM

Arizona has the weakest gun control laws in the US. It's legal to carry concealed without a license.

Unless they've recently changed their laws, Vermont has the loosest gun control laws of any state. Arizona had to pass a law to legalize carrying without a permit, whereas Vermont never a law against doing so, and what Arizona only recently introduced has been continuously legal in Vermont since the late 1700s (at least). The only gun control statute in Vermont (again, unless new ones have been passed in the last five years or so ie., since the last time I checked) are those which restrict access to firearms on the basis of felon & mental patient status. And I think there may be something in there about a minimum age for purchase (but not for possession).

Jake Featherston

10-07-2011, 06:04 PM

Notice how Americans oppose gun control...

this is the result:

homicide rates per 100,000 population

USA 5.9

EU 1.2

!!!

Approximately 60 percent of those murders were committed by the 12 percent of our population consisting of Negro descendants-of-slaves, however, so excluding them, the figures like 2.3 versus 1.2

Not that enormous of a disparity, but by all means, stay out of Oakland and Detroit.

Edelmann

10-07-2011, 06:15 PM

Approximately 60 percent of those murders were committed by the 12 percent of our population consisting of Negro descendants-of-slaves, however, so excluding them, the figures like 2.3 versus 1.2

Not that enormous of a disparity, but by all means, stay out of Oakland and Detroit.

Indeed. I would support a stronger form of gun control if we could agree to crack down on illegal immigration, African/Hispanic gangs, etc. as well. If you don't address the people who are the source of the problem, then there will be no solution.

Joe McCarthy

10-07-2011, 06:57 PM

Unless they've recently changed their laws, Vermont has the loosest gun control laws of any state. Arizona had to pass a law to legalize carrying without a permit, whereas Vermont never a law against doing so, and what Arizona only recently introduced has been continuously legal in Vermont since the late 1700s (at least).

http://www.slaw.ca/2011/01/13/arizona-has-weakest-gun-laws/

The Legal Community Against Violence is a California-based public interest law centre dedicated to preventing gun violence. Last July, it published Gun Laws Matter: A Comparison of State Firearms Laws and Statistics. All 50 states were ranked according to 25 different polices. Arizona came last:

'Last' meaning that Arizona has the best gun laws in the US.

Jake Featherston

10-07-2011, 10:45 PM

http://www.slaw.ca/2011/01/13/arizona-has-weakest-gun-laws/

'Last' meaning that Arizona has the best gun laws in the US.

You've established that a group of perfidious, California liberals are of the opinion (so often ill-informed with those people, as I'm sure you'll agree), that Arizona has the least restrictive gun control laws, and that a Canadian blogger agrees with them.

Let's look at some other sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Vermont

While Wikipedia is sometimes a source of dubious value, I think an objective perusal of the material provided there will lead to the conclusion it is worthy of interest in this instance. To start, we have a chart which doesn't reproduce well at this site (hence the utility of the link; never-the-less, I have included the chart's raw data here, so that anyone who doesn't wish to peruse the link, can still see the data, and decipher it accordingly): As you can see, in Vermont, there are no permits required to purchase/own a rifle or pistol, to carry a rifle or pistol, there are no registration requirements, and so-called "assault weapons" are not restricted in any way. Additionally, the state constitution explicitly bars any local restrictions on exercising one's Second Amendment rights in any county, muncipality, or other lesser jurisdiction within Vermont (with an exception carved out for public school grounds).

Subject/Law Long guns Handguns Relevant Statutes Notes
State Permit to Purchase? No No – No
Firearm registration? No No – No
"Assault weapon" law? No No – No
Owner license required? No No – No
Carry permits issued? No No – *May carry open or concealed without permit
State Preemption of local restrictions? Yes Yes – –
NFA weapons restricted? No No –

Vermont has very few gun control laws. Gun dealers are required to keep a record of all handgun sales. It is illegal to carry a gun on school property or in a courthouse. State law preempts local governments from regulating the possession, ownership, transfer, carrying, registration or licensing of firearms.[288]

The term "Vermont Carry" is widely used by gun rights advocates to refer to allowing citizens to carry a firearm concealed or openly without any sort of permit requirement, however this term is being replaced by the term "Constitutional Carry". Vermont law does not distinguish between residents and non-residents of the state; both have the same right to carry while in Vermont.

And here we have a quotation from the Vermont state constitution:

Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/const2.htm

Whereas if you compare this to the chart which appears elsewhere in the same Wikipedia article as cited above, you will find...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Arizona

...as well as this article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Arizona

You will discover that the gun control laws of Arizona and Vermont are virtually identical, but that any very slight, subtle differences indisputably accrue to Vermont's favor (in terms of their laws being less restrictive). I suspect the California liberals, you know, like Vermont, whereas they almost certainly do not like Arizona, and so they listed Arizona as the "worst," yet by their own lights, Vermont was clearly (albeit only very slightly) worse/less-restrictive than Arizona.*

*For example, is it not correct that one must be 21 in order to carry pistol in Arizona? Whereas in Vermont, the limit is 18 (or perhaps there is no age specification what-so-ever; its unclear.

Rosenrot

10-07-2011, 11:03 PM

I favor it. People can't have guns around here....

Contra Mundum

10-07-2011, 11:10 PM

The pro-gun control advocates here tend to be Western European and/or female while those opposed to gun control are American and East European. Not really surprising.

Contra Mundum

10-07-2011, 11:14 PM

Notice how Americans oppose gun control...

this is the result:

homicide rates per 100,000 population

USA 5.9

EU 1.2

!!!

Americans have a nigger problem not a gun problem. American states that are overwhelmingly white tend to have very little gun violence even though those states are awash in guns.

I believe in Switzerland some households have automatic weapons but there is very little gun violence in that country.

Wulfhere

10-07-2011, 11:18 PM

Money Shot

10-07-2011, 11:19 PM

I am a strong proponent of gun control.

I just can't stand to see perfectly good ammunition going to waste by not hitting it's target. :mad:

Joe McCarthy

10-07-2011, 11:30 PM

The pro-gun control advocates here tend to be Western European and/or female while those opposed to gun control are American and East European. Not really surprising.

I agree, though the decline of the British is alarming. They went from having loose laws that inspired ours to having a more prohibitive gun control regime than Nazi Germany:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=547660&postcount=16

Indeed, Britain's gun control laws look more like those of Jamaica than the United States. It could be that the United Kingdom (unlike Eastern Europeans), in lacking a period under tyrannical Communist police states, lacks an appreciation for the liberty it has lost.

Jake Featherston

10-07-2011, 11:35 PM

Yes, you're right. But imagine how much better it would be if those blacks didn't have easy access to guns.

Would it make you feel any better if the Blacks threw each other out of windows, instead?

Wulfhere

10-07-2011, 11:37 PM

I agree, though the decline of the British is alarming. They went from having loose laws that inspired ours to having a more prohibitive gun control regime than Nazi Germany:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=547660&postcount=16

Indeed, Britain's gun control laws look more like those of Jamaica than the United States. It could be that the United Kingdom (unlike Eastern Europeans), in lacking a period under tyrannical Communist police states, lacks an appreciation for the liberty it has lost.

The liberty to live in a society full of gun crime? No thanks.

There was, indeed, a traditional right to carry arms. But this was rendered unworkable by technological advances - much more efficient killing weapons, at much lower cost. The British were able to tackle this head on, because we lack a straightjacket written constitution. We evolved with society and banned them. The result of this is that even the blacks here don't have easy access to guns.

Wulfhere

10-07-2011, 11:38 PM

Would it make you feel any better if the Blacks through each other out of windows, instead?

Yes, it would. Because with guns, they are a much greater menace.

Joe McCarthy

10-08-2011, 12:00 AM

The liberty to live in a society full of gun crime? No thanks.

This assumes the fallacy that Britain has EVER been a society full of gun crime, even before restrictive gun control. Ownership has never been high, and the major gun legislation of recent decades has come from highly politicized and publicized sensationalized shootings.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 12:04 AM

I am in favour of a mild form of gun control: immigrants and anyone with a criminal record of any sort, , or a faulty mental health record should not have the right to obtain, use or posses weapons. The same goes for all those under 18 although they can legally hold their parents' weapons if one of their parents, a policeman or a licensed trainer are present.

This of course only applies to a public area. For immigrants and criminals and those with serious mental issues only the slightest suspicion that one is in possession of a weapon of any sort should mandate a search warrant.

Citizens: should be allowed to weapons they please - minus ABC weapons, tanks, artillery, combat aircraft, APC's. Concealed carry should also be allowed. A citizen should have the right to gun down an attacker or burglar with impunity and without the unnecessary bureaucracy.

Criminals: have forfeited their rights as citizens.

Immigrants: are of course no citizens and should not enjoy the rights that citizens have unless they are married to a citizen.

People with severe mental health defects (f.i schizophrenia): should of course be excluded for the sake of public safety.

The constitution should just call for "a right to bear arms" (like in the United States) or maybe even an "obligation to bear arms" (combined with military service) --- how additional regulations are set up (or left out) is up to the Provinces.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 12:10 AM

This assumes the fallacy that Britain has EVER been a society full of gun crime, even before restrictive gun control. Ownership has never been high, and the major gun legislation of recent decades has come from highly politicized and publicized sensationalized shootings.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. America could have been the same, but it's far too late now, for all sorts of reasons, including a mindless adherence to a constitution written 200 years ago.

Stleyfourgenfehnourk

10-08-2011, 12:32 AM

Americans have a nigger problem not a gun problem. American states that are overwhelmingly white tend to have very little gun violence even though those states are awash in guns.

I believe in Switzerland some households have automatic weapons but there is very little gun violence in that country.

Are you saying that black people are anthropologically prone to violence?

In France live about 9 millions of Africans and I don't know how many Caribbeans (which means that approximately the 8-10% of the population is made by black people) and the rate of homicide is 1.31

Anyway those people you call niggers are descendants of people that your forefathers have deported from Africa, so if you consider them a problem...we can add that is a problem caused by you.

Joe McCarthy

10-08-2011, 12:47 AM

Anyway those people you call niggers are descendants of people that your forefathers have deported from Africa, so if you consider them a problem...we can add that is a problem caused by you.

As he's a Russian I doubt his ancestors were involved in the transport of African slaves to Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. :rolleyes:

In any case, regardless of who brought them over here: the problem is one that exists today and that is the issue. It accomplishes nothing to blame people that died over three centuries ago.

Stleyfourgenfehnourk

10-08-2011, 01:03 AM

As he's a Russian I doubt his ancestors were involved in the transport of African slaves to Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. :rolleyes:

Russian or American the meaning doesn't change.
It's proved that the murder rate is higher in those countries where it's simpler to buy a gun.
An other example can be Finland, which is the only EU country where exists a legislation similar to the American one. And Finland is the EU country with the highest rate of homicides, 2.5

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 01:12 AM

Contra Mundum

10-08-2011, 01:15 AM

Russian or American the meaning doesn't change.
It's proved that the murder rate is higher in those countries where it's simpler to buy a gun .
An other example can be Finland, which is the only EU country where exists a legislation similar to the American one. And Finland is the EU country with the higher rate of homicides, 2.5

I should have elaborated that blacks and guns don't mix. It makes little sense to deny the right of gun ownership to the 87% of the population because 13% of America is black. Violent crime has dropped considerably in America once more of their states started passing 'right to carry' laws. I read news reports of more home intruders being shot to death there. That is one hell of a deterrent.

Boudica

10-08-2011, 01:23 AM

I am absolutely in favor of it. What many people who want the ban of guns don't understand is that this really isn't going to do anything in the long run and over all big picture besides leave innocent law abiding civilians unarmed when or if a criminal tries to victimize them. I can see why people would be in favor of a no gun law if circumstances were different. But just because there is a law which prohibits the owning of guns doesn't mean that every criminal is going to abide by this law and get rid of their guns.

Of course criminals will still keep their guns, and use this to their advantage. King pins and overall thugs will make a profit from selling guns underground to other criminals. People will be able to get a gun no matter what.. It's sort of the same thing as illegal drugs.. Drugs are illegal yet are obviously still being sold and used at a high rate, there is no stopping it.. If a criminal plans to break into a persons house, rob them, or commit some sort of vicious act against them they won't have to worry or think about their potential victim having a weapon to protect themselves, which is something that burglars/criminals worry a bit about before breaking into ones house/harming them.. They won't think "what if that guy has a shotgun right under his bed".. They will think HAHA I am the only one with the gun, I win.

As I said, I can understand people who would want there to be a no gun law if things (the above) were different. In my opinion leaving innocent civilians unarmed and unprotected against criminals who will knowingly use that to their advantage is not good.. I do however think that the availability of getting a gun is a bit too easy (at least where I live). Where I live in order to get a shotgun you only have to be 18. I think that there should be training, and other processes involving the teaching of gun usage and protection before a person is able to buy one.

Contra Mundum

10-08-2011, 01:27 AM

Australia has one of the strictest gun laws in the world yet their violent crime rate is higher than Switzerland where it isn't unusual to see men carrying military style weapons while going about their daily lives.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 01:30 AM

I am absolutely in favor of it. What many people who want the ban of guns don't understand is that this really isn't going to do anything in the long run and over all big picture besides leave innocent law abiding civilians unarmed when or if a criminal tries to victimize them. I can see why people would be in favor of a no gun law if circumstances were different. But just because there is a law which prohibits the owning of guns doesn't mean that every criminal is going to abide by this law and get rid of their guns.

Of course criminals will still keep their guns, and use this to their advantage. King pins and overall thugs will make a profit from selling guns underground to other criminals. People will be able to get a gun no matter what.. It's sort of the same thing as illegal drugs.. Drugs are illegal yet are obviously still being sold and used at a high rate, there is no stopping it.. If a criminal plans to break into a persons house, robs them, or commit some sort of vicious act against them they won't have to worry or think about their potential victim having a weapon to protect themselves, which is something that burglars/criminals worry a bit about before breaking into ones house. They won't think "what if that guy has a shotgun right under his bed".. They will think HAHA I am the only one with the gun, I win.

As I said, I can understand people who would want there to be a no gun law if things (the above) were different. But they do.. In my opinion leaving innocent civilians unarmed and unprotected against criminals who will knowingly use that to their advantage is not good.. I do however think that the availability of getting a gun is a bit too easy (at least where I live). Where I live in order to get a shotgun you only have to be 18. I think that there should be training, and other processes involving the teaching of gun usage and protection before a person is able to buy it..

It doesn't work like that though, as the statistics prove. Making guns very difficult to obtain also makes them very difficult to obtain illegally, because there are far fewer around. That's why Americans are four or five times as likely to be murdered as Europeans.

SwordoftheVistula

10-08-2011, 01:31 AM

It's proved that the murder rate is higher in those countries where it's simpler to buy a gun

Actually, the opposite has been proven. See here:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Boudica

10-08-2011, 01:45 AM

It doesn't work like that though, as the statistics prove. Making guns very difficult to obtain also makes them very difficult to obtain illegally, because there are far fewer around. That's why Americans are four or five times as likely to be murdered as Europeans.

Hmm, well.. Statistics also show that in areas which allow gun control there is less crime, I believe a thread was made about this not too long ago.

It wouldn't be difficult to obtain,lol.. As I said it is the SAME idea of illegal drugs. In the U.S it is estimated that over 40 billion dollars is spent on illegal drugs each year.. Drugs have been illegal for quite some time, yet their sales are 'booming' and more and more people use them. Why would it be different with guns?

Jake Featherston

10-08-2011, 01:45 AM

The liberty to live in a society full of gun crime? No thanks.

I can assure you, I don't live in a society full of gun crime, irrespective of the fact that some primarily Negro-heavy cities also located on the continent of North America happen to drastically skew crime stats for the USA. Where I live, we have almsot no gun control, and almost no crime of any kind, gun-related or otherwise.

Yet if our government becomes a tyranny one day, our armed citizenry can always choose to rise up and overthrow it. What will you do? Hope they pass over you while they're liquidating your neighbours?

SwordoftheVistula

10-08-2011, 01:57 AM

14 of America's 25 most dangerous cities (http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-cities-2011-5?op=1) are in the 10 states with the strictest gun control laws (http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-Galleries/Lists/States-with-the-strictest-gun-laws/%28photo%29/259376). I included Washington DC in this, even though it did not count as a 'state' for that study, since it has stricter gun control laws than any state.

Boudica

10-08-2011, 03:44 AM

That's why Americans are four or five times as likely to be murdered as Europeans.

When it comes to the crime rate statistics of the U.S. (a country) vs. Europe (a continent), things get a bit tricky.. First you need to realize that while your continent's population is higher then the U.S. population, there is no European country which has a population any where near the amount of the U.S. population. So, if these studies are based off of countries in Europe that have a population which is 3 times less then the entire U.S. population, this isn't really a so to say 'fair' study..

Another thing which REALLY needs to be taken into account as well are the racial demographic differences.. It is estimated that there are 4-8 million blacks in all of Europe, France having the highest population of them at 2-5 million. So, there are only 4-8 million blacks in a population which is over 700 million. In the U.S. it's a BIT different :) there are around 40 million blacks and an estimated 20 million Mexicans (although there is surely more since this is only counting the ones that are LEGAL). The U.S. has a population of around 300 million..

Why is this relevant? Well, because in the U.S. the majority (majority being an understatement) of crimes are committed by NON whites, mostly by blacks.. Around 67% of the entire U.S. prison population is nonwhite. Blacks account for around half, hispanics account for around 17%. Take note that both of these races are considered as "minorities" and blacks are only 12% of the U.S. population.. Blacks are about 7 times more likely to have a prison record than whites. Here are some lovely charts as well.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Lifetime_prevalence_of_incarceration.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Homicide_offending_by_race.jpg

To summarize my point, Europe as a continent full of over 700 million people only have around 8 million blacks. America as a country has around 40 million blacks with a population of around 300 million. It is obvious that blacks and hispanics (which Europe obviously doesn't have any where near the amount that the U.S. does) are the main source of crimes. Take this into account when bashing America for it's crime.. In other words, don't talk until you have any where near the amount of negros and mexicans in your continent, because only then would it be FAIR to compare the continent of Europe to America. :)

Contra Mundum

10-08-2011, 03:48 AM

When it comes to the crime rate statistics of the U.S. (a country) vs. Europe (a continent), things get a bit tricky.. First you need to realize that while your continent's population is higher then the U.S. population, there is no European country which has a population any where near the amount of the U.S. population. So, if these studies are based off of countries in Europe that have a population which is 3 times less then the entire U.S. population, this isn't really a so to say 'fair' study..

Another thing which REALLY needs to be taken into account as well are the racial demographic differences.. It is estimated that there are 4-8 million blacks in all of Europe, France having the highest population of them at 2-5 million. So, there are only 4-8 million blacks in a population which is over 700 million. In the U.S. it's a BIT different :) there are around 40 million blacks and an estimated 20 million Mexicans (although there is surely more since this is only counting the ones that are LEGAL). The U.S. has a population of around 300 million..

Why is this relevant? Well, because in the U.S. the majority (majority being an understatement) of crimes are committed by NON whites, mostly by blacks.. Around 67% of the entire U.S. prison population is nonwhite. Blacks account for around half, hispanics account for around 17%. Take note that both of these races are considered as "minorities" and blacks are only 12% of the U.S. population.. Blacks are about 7 times more likely to have a prison record than whites. Here are some lovely charts as well.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Lifetime_prevalence_of_incarceration.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Homicide_offending_by_race.jpg

To summarize my point, Europe as a continent full of over 700 million people only have around 8 million blacks. America as a country has around 40 million blacks with a population of around 300 million. It is obvious that blacks and hispanics (which Europe obviously doesn't have any where near the amount that the U.S. does) are the main source of crimes. Take this into account when bashing America for it's crime.. In other words, don't talk until you have any where near the amount of negros and mexicans in your continent, because only then would it be FAIR to compare the continent of Europe to America. :)

I wouldn't be surprised if white Americans of European descent commit less crime than Europeans. Lets not forget, millions of Americans who are considered "white" aren't of European background.

There may be 20 million Mexicans in America, but there are nearly 50 million Hispanics who are citizens, and an additional 8 to 15 million illegals. Not sure what percentage of those illegals are Hispanic, but probably the majority.

Boudica

10-08-2011, 03:51 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if white Americans of European descent commit less crime than Europeans. Lets not forget, millions of Americans are considered "white" but aren't of European background.

There may be 20 million Mexicans in America, but there are nearly 50 million Hispanics who are citizens, and an additional 8 to 15 million illegals. Not sure what percentage of those illegals are Hispanic, but probably the majority.

Exactly.

Contra Mundum

10-08-2011, 04:18 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Homicide_offending_by_race.jpg

That chart is interesting. The homicide rate for whites stayed consistently low while for blacks there was change, a big decline, yet still pretty high. From my understanding, more blacks were imprisoned. I'll need to check to be sure. I believe 1/3 of black males between 18 and 35 are in prison, parole or on probation. A record high. That probably explains the drop in crime.

Contra Mundum

10-08-2011, 04:25 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Lifetime_prevalence_of_incarceration.png

Black women have an incarceration rate equal to white males. That's a staggering statistic since crime is usually much higher for men.

Too bad there aren't statistics kept for whites of European descent versus "whites" of non-European descent.

Magister Eckhart

10-08-2011, 06:27 AM

As an NRA member I should be totally opposed to all forms of gun control. Unfortunately, I am not accustomed to following anyone blindly into anything. I simply cannot abide the idea of idiots running about with AK-47s. I believe very strongly that there ought to be a competence test administered on any citizen wishing to obtain and own a firearm. This doesn't mean the system should be as restrictive as, say, owning a car, but some form of testing and licensing should be in place. I also believe firmly that convicted felons, especially violent criminals, should be barred from owning firearms altogether.

This is common-sense gun control that should be matched by common-sense regard for liberty; no law should restrict or detract from the Castle Doctrine of home defence, and no competent, intelligent, law-abiding citizen ought to be barred from owning and using firearms. The transportation of firearms across national borders ought, of course, to be extremely tightly controlled -- but I also see no reason to be restrictive about transporting firearms across state lines.

I am, further, in favour of both for-profit privately-sponsored as well as free government-sponsored firearm training workshops not only to test intelligence, personality, and competency, but also advanced courses to train in the actual use of firearms for self-defence, home-defence, hunting for sport and for food, and target-shooting. The better trained a citizen is with his firearm, the less likely he is to hurt himself and others - that is absolutely the best form of gun control the government could sponsor.

Jake Featherston

10-08-2011, 07:41 AM

...there are nearly 50 million Hispanics who are citizens, and an additional 8 to 15 million illegals. Not sure what percentage of those illegals are Hispanic, but probably the majority.

The total number of Hispanics (Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, etc.) in the USA is in the low 40 millions, not 55-65 million.

Contra Mundum

10-08-2011, 07:57 AM

The total number of Hispanics (Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, etc.) in the USA is in the low 40 millions, not 55-65 million.

Hispanics have topped 50 million in the US. I'm not sure if that includes illegals or not.

25% of people under the age of 18 in America are Hispanic.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-24/us/census.hispanics_1_hispanic-population-illegal-immigration-foreign-born?_s=PM:US

Boudica

10-08-2011, 08:07 AM

The total number of Hispanics (Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, etc.) in the USA is in the low 40 millions, not 55-65 million.

... He is referring to the ones that AREN'T LEGAL, which is quite a few. Statistics given by reliable resources are only able to add the Mexicans, etc that are actually LEGAL CITIZENS here.. Ones that are illegal are unable to be added to the population of these statistics due to being practically invisible to censuses, etc which the information is gathered from..

Aces High

10-08-2011, 08:27 AM

Against. The greatest deterrent to tyranny is a well armed population.

The US is a tyranny of sorts,illegal wars,assasination of its citizens without trial,arrest without trial,etc etc......and the citizens are well armed.

Norway for instance is a peaceful country and there are hardly any guns.

I would say the greatest threat to tyranny would be a well informed and well educated population.

SwordoftheVistula

10-08-2011, 09:04 AM

assasination of its citizens without trial,arrest without trial,etc etc

Those are muslims. Nobody cares about them. We don't even really consider muslims to be actual 'citizens', in the popular common thinking.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 09:13 AM

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 09:14 AM

I can assure you, I don't live in a society full of gun crime, irrespective of the fact that some primarily Negro-heavy cities also located on the continent of North America happen to drastically skew crime stats for the USA. Where I live, we have almsot no gun control, and almost no crime of any kind, gun-related or otherwise.

Yet if our government becomes a tyranny one day, our armed citizenry can always choose to rise up and overthrow it. What will you do? Hope they pass over you while they're liquidating your neighbours?

That's just a paranoid fantasy.

Contra Mundum

10-08-2011, 09:17 AM

........

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 09:19 AM

When it comes to the crime rate statistics of the U.S. (a country) vs. Europe (a continent), things get a bit tricky.. First you need to realize that while your continent's population is higher then the U.S. population, there is no European country which has a population any where near the amount of the U.S. population. So, if these studies are based off of countries in Europe that have a population which is 3 times less then the entire U.S. population, this isn't really a so to say 'fair' study..

Another thing which REALLY needs to be taken into account as well are the racial demographic differences.. It is estimated that there are 4-8 million blacks in all of Europe, France having the highest population of them at 2-5 million. So, there are only 4-8 million blacks in a population which is over 700 million. In the U.S. it's a BIT different :) there are around 40 million blacks and an estimated 20 million Mexicans (although there is surely more since this is only counting the ones that are LEGAL). The U.S. has a population of around 300 million..

Why is this relevant? Well, because in the U.S. the majority (majority being an understatement) of crimes are committed by NON whites, mostly by blacks.. Around 67% of the entire U.S. prison population is nonwhite. Blacks account for around half, hispanics account for around 17%. Take note that both of these races are considered as "minorities" and blacks are only 12% of the U.S. population.. Blacks are about 7 times more likely to have a prison record than whites. Here are some lovely charts as well.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Lifetime_prevalence_of_incarceration.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Homicide_offending_by_race.jpg

To summarize my point, Europe as a continent full of over 700 million people only have around 8 million blacks. America as a country has around 40 million blacks with a population of around 300 million. It is obvious that blacks and hispanics (which Europe obviously doesn't have any where near the amount that the U.S. does) are the main source of crimes. Take this into account when bashing America for it's crime.. In other words, don't talk until you have any where near the amount of negros and mexicans in your continent, because only then would it be FAIR to compare the continent of Europe to America. :)

I was actually talking about the UK figures, but the ones for Europe as a whole are quite similar too.

So, you have loads of blacks. Wouldn't it be better, then, if they couldn't get hold of guns easily? Surely this is an argument for stricter, nationwide control? And to those who point to states and cities with controls being the most crime-ridden, this is completely specious, without borders.

Contra Mundum

10-08-2011, 09:26 AM

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 09:28 AM

I choose to believe Norwegians are not killing one another because they're civilized human beings, not because they don't have access to firearms.

There are mass killings in Africa and their weapon of choice is the machete.

The logic of this is inexorable. The more blacks you have in a country, the stricter controls you need.

Contra Mundum

10-08-2011, 09:33 AM

The US is a tyranny of sorts,illegal wars,assasination of its citizens without trial,arrest without trial,etc etc......and the citizens are well armed.

Norway for instance is a peaceful country and there are hardly any guns.

I would say the greatest threat to tyranny would be a well informed and well educated population.

After I reread your post I see the point you were making. There is tyranny in the US despite the population owning firearms. That's a logical point to make. I do agree that becoming more politically involved is a greater deterrent to tyranny than owning guns.

Contra Mundum

10-08-2011, 09:48 AM

The logic of this is inexorable. The more blacks you have in a country, the stricter controls you need.

That's a fair point but do you support gun control in places like Norway and Japan where the populations are more homogeneous?

In order to impose gun control in the US to such a degree that even criminals no longer have access to them, you would need to turn the country into a police state for a number of years. You would have to send police into people's homes to confiscate firearms because there is such a large population that own guns, and those in high crime areas are too afraid to surrender the only way they feel they can protect themselves in their homes.

European blood

10-08-2011, 10:07 AM

Hmm, well.. Statistics also show that in areas which allow gun control there is less crime, I believe a thread was made about this not too long ago.

It wouldn't be difficult to obtain,lol.. As I said it is the SAME idea of illegal drugs. In the U.S it is estimated that over 40 billion dollars is spent on illegal drugs each year..

Drugs have been illegal for quite some time, yet their sales are 'booming' and more and more people use them. Why would it be different with guns?

I also have reached that conclusion.

The gun ban only disarms the law abiding citizens because criminals don't respect the law anyways and will get their non-registered weapons in the illegal guns market.

The police always come late if they come at all to collect evidences and to start an investigation.

The police can't give us protection in real time, only an armed civilian can defend himself from the attackers.

I believe self-defense is a basic human right and guns don't kill people, people do.

Of course the gun grabbers in our societies of control don't like that decent honest people have guns in their possession because they are affraid of an armed revolution and that would put their power at risk.

Gun control protects thieves, street criminals and tyrants.

http://minutemanpatriot.homestead.com/civil/Quotes_nwo_firearms.html

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 10:11 AM

That's a fair point but do you support gun control in places like Norway and Japan where the populations are more homogeneous?

In order to impose gun control in the US to such a degree that even criminals no longer have access to them, you would need to turn the country into a police state for a number of years. You would have to send police into people's homes to confiscate firearms because there is such a large population that own guns, and those in high crime areas are too afraid to surrender the only way they feel they can protect themselves in their homes.

I would support gun control even if the country is homogenous - but it's not on my list of priorities, and I can see areas of compromise.

You're certainly correct that America would find it very difficult to reverse the effects of lax control over such a lengthy period. But the alternative to not even trying is just going to be more violence.

Aces High

10-08-2011, 10:11 AM

Those are muslims. Nobody cares about them. We don't even really consider muslims to be actual 'citizens', in the popular common thinking.

Todays muslims are yesterdays communists....tomorrow who will it be..?

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 10:13 AM

I also have reached that conclusion.

The gun ban only disarms the law abiding citizens because criminals don't respect the law anyways and will get their non-registered weapons in the illegal guns market.

The police always come late if they come at all to collect evidences and to start an investigation.

The police can't give us protection in real time, only an armed civilian can defend himself from the attackers.

I believe self-defense is a basic human right and guns don't kill people, people do.

Of course the gun grabbers in our societies of control don't like that decent honest people have guns in their possession because they are affraid of an armed revolution and that would put their power at risk.

Gun control protects thieves, street criminals and tyrants.

http://minutemanpatriot.homestead.com/civil/Quotes_nwo_firearms.html

No, you're not listening. Check the statistics. Strong gun control actually protects people from crime, because it reduces criminals' access to guns.

Germanicus

10-08-2011, 10:30 AM

I agree, though the decline of the British is alarming. They went from having loose laws that inspired ours to having a more prohibitive gun control regime than Nazi Germany:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=547660&postcount=16

Indeed, Britain's gun control laws look more like those of Jamaica than the United States. It could be that the United Kingdom (unlike Eastern Europeans), in lacking a period under tyrannical Communist police states, lacks an appreciation for the liberty it has lost.

In the UK there was an incident in Hungerford Berkshire in 1987, i remember it like it was yesterday.
The nation was shocked to the core. nothing like it had happened before.
Inevitably gun control followed.
Having once been a firearms owner and gun enthusiast i whole heartedly favour gun control.
For myself i have no police record, i can apply to the Chief constable of Gloucestershire in Cheltenham and request a licence, all mental checks and criminal files would be searched to see if i was safe to own them.
Without gun control there would be a different Britain than we have now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

Peasant

10-08-2011, 10:32 AM

I favour the UK's gun laws. If I really want to shoot or own a gun I can become a member of a shooting range.

morski

10-08-2011, 10:36 AM

The US is a tyranny of sorts,illegal wars,assasination of its citizens without trial,arrest without trial,etc etc......and the citizens are well armed.

Norway for instance is a peaceful country and there are hardly any guns.

I would say the greatest threat to tyranny would be a well informed and well educated population.

Agreed. The greatest deterrent to tyranny is well informed, politically active and well armed population, then.:)

Germanicus

10-08-2011, 10:41 AM

I favour the UK's gun laws. If I really want to shoot or own a gun I can become a member of a shooting range.

In one!..........well put.

Aces High

10-08-2011, 10:44 AM

Agreed. The greatest deterrent to tyranny is well informed, politically active and well armed population, then.:)

Ghandi and his passive resistance got rid of the British in India,its not all about guns and street warfare.
There's more than one way to skin a cat..;)

I thin the UK has got it about right with the gun laws.If you want you can join a club and own and use all types of weapons (except fully automatic) as long as you have no history of mental illness or a criminal record.

European blood

10-08-2011, 11:37 AM

No, you're not listening. Check the statistics. Strong gun control actually protects people from crime, because it reduces criminals' access to guns.

I checked the statistics.

In Portugal they implemented restrict gun laws in 2006 but in the last decade the violent criminality peaked in 2008 and stayed high since then.

The gun law wasn't the problem the open borders and the violent criminal immigrant invaders are the problem.

Some years ago Portugal was known for the low violence and low criminality rates, now we have the brazilian mob, sicilian mob, eastern european mob, african gangs, chinese triad, ETA ... all operating in here.

Ghettos are like an illegal gun 'Supermarket' for Gangs and when the police enters there is with the SWAT team because the normal Police can't patrol those neighbourhoods safely.

Conclusion: Strong gun control actually doesn't protects people from crime, and doesn't reduces criminals' access to guns.

Edmond_Dantes

10-08-2011, 11:54 AM

Oppose, very strongly. Practically speaking, stricter gun control is quite easy to statistically correlate with higher crime rates and laxer with lower. This has held up throughout the American states, in Canada, in Australia, and essentially everywhere else stringent gun control laws have been put in place. Of course, this is also offset in America by the fact that those states with the strictest laws tend to have high black populations - but those without strict laws are hardly universally bastions of whiteness as northern New England is, what with a large chunk of them being Southwestern states with high percentages of Mexican mestizos. The reason for why gun control tends to operate in this manner? A law-abiding citizen is less likely to be willing to illegally obtain an instrument of self-defense, whereas someone already willing to commit robbery and/or murder has no such qualms about obtaining an untraceable weapon. Another related point: in some cases normal people in scummy urban environments defending their homes against intruders via shooting said intruder, what I'd hope we could all agree is a perfectly rational response, have themselves faced criminal charges for exerting "unnecessary force" and having errors with the gun used like a trigger lock imperfectly in-place. What does this accomplish? Less incentive to defend your family, less incentive to own a means to defend that family, more incentive for robbers to break into peoples' houses.

Additionally, an armed citizenry is the only effective deterrent to tyranny and government oppression should the need eventually arise and the government far overextend itself beyond its constitutional bounds. I seriously doubt the US government would listen to a bunch of guys sitting around in the road ala Gandhi/the Wall Street rabble.

That said, Civis Batavi's restrictions make sense to me, so I could see an argument for gun control in those particular instances - the only issue I'd have is "how do we prove X person is a criminal?", which would be sadly impossible in most cases (nobody walks into a gun store and goes "yo, I just got out of jail!") to do before the person obtains the gun without significant background checks and mountains of paperwork. Whether the costs of that outweigh the benefits of the policy, I'm not sure.

Boudica

10-08-2011, 12:14 PM

You need to check the statistics, rather than rely on what you think would be the case. You are about four or five times more likely to be murdered in the US as you are in the UK.

I think that I have already addressed that. There is no need to check the statistics, I don't need to think of what would be the case since there is an obvious example right at hand.. And one more thing, I'm not very likely to be murdered (unlike you) if some one decides to harm me (people tend to harm people) because I am armed.

Although I ALREADY addressed the whole crime thing, I'll go again.. The UK has a population of only 61 million while America has a population of over 300 million.. America's population is almost 5 times larger then the UK's, this makes your comparison in no way reliable or in anyway meaningful at all.. Also there are only around 650,000 blacks in ALL of the UK which is a laughable amount in comparison to America's amount of over 40 million, not to mention the amount of Mexicans. As I said earlier, they create well over half of our countries crimes.. Also as I will say again, come to me when you have an example of a place which A:has anywhere near the amount of people and vast variety of demographics & B:has a shit load of negros and mexicans, until then, stop using shitty examples which would never hold up in a debate as proof of jack shit..

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 12:18 PM

I checked the statistics.

In Portugal they implemented restrict gun laws in 2006 but in the last decade the violent criminality peaked in 2008 and stayed high since then.

The gun law wasn't the problem the open borders and the violent criminal immigrant invaders are the problem.

Some years ago Portugal was known for the low violence and low criminality rates, now we have the brazilian mob, sicilian mob, eastern european mob, african gangs, chinese triad, ETA ... all operating in here.

Ghettos are like an illegal gun 'Supermarket' for Gangs and when the police enters there is with the SWAT team because the normal Police can't patrol those neighbourhoods safely.

Conclusion: Strong gun control actually doesn't protects people from crime, and doesn't reduces criminals' access to guns.

Check the UK statistics.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 12:18 PM

[B]

That said, Civis Batavi's restrictions make sense to me, so I could see an argument for gun control in those particular instances - the only issue I'd have is "how do we prove X person is a criminal?", which would be sadly impossible in most cases (nobody walks into a gun store and goes "yo, I just got out of jail!") to do before the person obtains the gun without significant background checks and mountains of paperwork. Whether the costs of that outweigh the benefits of the policy, I'm not sure.
Simple. One could set up a national databank which holds the names of convicted criminals. Accessible to people like the police, the judiciary, gun shop owners. All one needs is a computer with an internet connection.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 12:22 PM

I think that I have already addressed that. There is no need to check the statistics, I don't need to think of what would be the case since there is an obvious example right at hand.. And one more thing, I'm not very likely to be murdered (unlike you) if some one decides to harm me (people tend to harm people) because I am armed.

Although I ALREADY addressed the whole crime thing, I'll go again.. The UK has a population of only 61 million while America has a population of over 300 million.. America's population is almost 5 times larger then the UK's, this makes your comparison in no way reliable or in anyway meaningful at all.. Also there are only around 650,000 blacks in ALL of the UK which is a laughable amount in comparison to America's amount of over 40 million, not to mention the amount of Mexicans. As I said earlier, they create well over half of our countries crimes.. Also as I will say again, come to me when you have an example of a place which A:has anywhere near the amount of people and vast variety of demographics & B:has a shit load of negros and mexicans, until then, stop using shitty examples which would never hold up in a debate as proof of jack shit..

The figures are compiled per 100,000 people, so the relative size of the populations is not a factor. Your other point, about the larger number of non-whites in America, is perfectly true of course. This is an argument for stricter gun control, to prevent them having easy access to weapons.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 12:25 PM

In Rome when a boy came of age he was given a toga as a symbol of his acceptance into the role of that of an adult. Among the Germanics, a boy was given a weapon (sword/spear) as a symbol of his adult status.

Perhaps some of you will instinctively grasps the significance of this. :thumb001:

Most Europeans seem to favor gun control. Why? I do not know. But I believe this may have something to do with the way some Europeans see themselves in relation to the State. They still see themselves as "subjects", i.e., property of some divinely appointed king, and, as such, believe that only this king may grant them them privilege of going about armed.

Contrast that to the American view of every man being the king of his castle and that of individual liberty and responsibility.

Edmond_Dantes

10-08-2011, 12:25 PM

Simple. One could set up a national databank which holds the names of convicted criminals. Accessible to people like the police, the judiciary, gun shop owners. All one needs is a computer with an internet connection.

Of course, the issue there is criminals lying about their names and using fake IDs - but it should indeed reduce the number of them buying firearms.

Check the UK statistics.

Oh, you mean the UK statistics that at least one mainstream news outlet (The Telegraph) has persistently stated are fiddled with on a relatively regular basis, crime rates going underreported and such due to PR pressures?

Or maybe you mean the statistics of a joint study by Cambridge University and the U.S. Department of Justice, which found that proportionally-speaking you're 1.4 times more likely to be mugged in England than the United States - a fact confirmed by a later United Nations study?

This is an argument for stricter gun control, to prevent them having easy access to weapons.

They obtain them just fine in the states and cities with the strictest gun control laws. Many know gang members who can easily supply them with relatively good weapons. Who does it prevent from having easy access to weapons? Their victims.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 12:29 PM

Of course, the issue there is criminals lying about their names and using fake IDs - but it should indeed reduce the number of them buying firearms.

One could always brand convicted criminals when they get out of prison: give them a special tattoo. Either on their forehead or on the arm.

That means that every convicted criminal since, let's say, 1975 would receive a tattoo. Something with a number and the code of arms of the penitentiary system.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 12:30 PM

Of course, the issue there is criminals lying about their names and using fake IDs - but it should indeed reduce the number of them buying firearms.

Oh, you mean the UK statistics that at least one mainstream news outlet (The Telegraph) has persistently stated are fiddled with on a relatively regular basis, crime rates going underreported and such due to PR pressures?

Or maybe you mean the statistics of a joint study by Cambridge University and the U.S. Department of Justice, which found that proportionally-speaking you're 1.4 times more likely to be mugged in England than the United States - a fact confirmed by a later United Nations study?

Even if that latter figure is correct, the muggers will not have guns. British people tend to fight back against muggers. And in any case, 1.4 times something isn't much greater than 1. Compare this with the fact that Americans are about five times as likely to be murdered as British people.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 12:32 PM

They obtain them just fine in the states and cities with the strictest gun control laws. Many know gang members who can easily supply them with relatively good weapons. Who does it prevent from having easy access to weapons? Their victims.

The ban needs to be nationwide and in any case will take a very long time to have any effect, given how many guns are already there.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 12:35 PM

One could always brand convicted criminals when they get out of prison: give them a special tattoo. Either on their forehead or on the arm.

That means that every convicted criminal since, let's say, 1975 would receive a tattoo. Something with a number and the code of arms of the penitentiary system.

That's what we essentially have in the US. Convicted felons are, by law, permanently barred from ever purchasing or owing firearms again.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 12:37 PM

That's what we essentially have in the US. Convicted felons are, by law, permanently barred from ever purchasing or owing firearms again.
I basically want to copy that system. Let's see whether there are errors: they should be ironed out.

Edmond_Dantes

10-08-2011, 12:37 PM

Even if that latter figure is correct, the muggers will not have guns. British people tend to fight back against muggers. And in any case, 1.4 times something isn't much greater than 1. Compare this with the fact that Americans are about five times as likely to be murdered as British people.

"The muggers will not have guns" assumes that criminals follow the law, an innately hilarious statement. Muggers in places with strict gun control laws here have guns, and use them to force young ladies to hand out the contents of their purses. You're trying to tell me that criminals behave radically differently in the UK?

The ban needs to be nationwide and in any case will take a very long time to have any effect, given how many guns are already there.

So, basically, anything that doesn't fit a pre-fabricated conclusion just provokes the answer "well, we're just not doing enough!" The issue is not the guns that are there, nor the extent of the ban. The issue is that in nearly all cases, the criminals don't obtain their guns from sources that the police can immediately verify - they obtain them from gang buddies, who get them from other gang buddies, who get them from sources that often transport them across international lines such as MS13 and mafia/mafiya groups. This is textbook black market activity, and not something gun control laws cover to any significant extent. The bulk of what they cover are legitimate, traceable, up-front transactions in stores.

One could always brand convicted criminals when they get out of prison: give them a special tattoo. Either on their forehead or on the arm.

That means that every convicted criminal since, let's say, 1975 would receive a tattoo. Something with a number and the code of arms of the penitentiary system.

Okay, I definitely like the sound of that. :thumb001:

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 12:42 PM

"The muggers will not have guns" assumes that criminals follow the law, an innately hilarious statement. Muggers in places with strict gun control laws here have guns, and use them to force young ladies to hand out the contents of their purses. You're trying to tell me that criminals behave radically differently in the UK?

So, basically, anything that doesn't fit a pre-fabricated conclusion just provokes the answer "well, we're just not doing enough!" The issue is not the guns that are there, nor the extent of the ban. The issue is that in nearly all cases, the criminals don't obtain their guns from sources that the police can immediately verify - they obtain them from gang buddies, who get them from other gang buddies, who get them from sources that often transport them across international lines such as MS13 and mafia/mafiya groups.

Okay, I definitely like the sound of that. :thumb001:

Correct, muggers in the UK don't carry guns. Not because they are law-abiding, but because they just can't get hold of them (even if they wanted to).

Strict gun controls will not work overnight, because of all the guns already there. This is such an obvious fact that I seriously question the sanity, or honesty, of anyone who denies it.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 12:45 PM

I basically want to copy that system. Let's see whether there are errors: they should be ironed out.

The system works perfectly. In order to buy a firearm, one must present a valid license to a firearms merchant. No license, no sale. Not an especially hard concept to grasp or implement. :thumb001:

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 12:47 PM

Correct, muggers in the UK don't carry guns. Not because they are law-abiding, but because they just can't get hold of them (even if they wanted to).

Strict gun controls will not work overnight, because of all the guns already there. This is such an obvious fact that I seriously question the sanity, or honesty, of anyone who denies it.
Bollocks. I have noticed that Britain is a country with a high amount of gun violence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gun-crime+uk/uk). Here is some more (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html) for you. To my untrained continental eyes Britain is a little America when it comes to that -- with the only real difference that it is legally difficult to obtain arms. Illegally ? Well I guess not so much. All it takes is some what... a couple of hundred quid ? I am not sure of the actual prices but I wouldn't be too surprised if it wouldn't be too expensive.

In my 29 years of life experience I have come to realise something: if you ban guns, drugs etc. The people will be much more likely to get their hands on them and use them.

Here is a thought for you: in a state that outlaws guns - only the outlaws have guns.

It's not a sensationalist quote. It has been proven by history itself.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 12:50 PM

Bollocks. I have noticed that Britain is a country with a high amount of gun violence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gun-crime+uk/uk). Here is some more (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html) for you. To my untrained continental eyes Britain is a little America when it comes to that -- with the only real difference that it is legally difficult to obtain arms. Illegally ? Well I guess not so much. All it takes is some what... a couple of hundred quid ? I am not sure of the actual prices but I wouldn't be too surprised if it wouldn't be too expensive.

In my 29 years of life experience I have come to realise something: if you ban guns, drugs etc. The people will be much more likely to get their hands on them and use them.

No system is perfect, and at no point did I ever claim that UK criminals never use guns. But it's still infrequent enough to warrant a mention on the news when they do.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 12:51 PM

Here is a thought for you: in a state that outlaws guns - only the outlaws have guns.

It's not a sensationalist quote. It has been proven by history itself.

Perfectly true of course. But there will be far fewer outlaws with guns than in a state that's already full of them.

Indeed, the quote is vacuous. Akin to saying, scrap all laws and there will be no more crime.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 12:51 PM

No system is perfect, and at no point did I ever claim that UK criminals never use guns. But it's still infrequent enough to warrant a mention on the news when they do.
Yes right. Did you know that Britain has the highest number of violent crimes (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html) in all of Europe ?
Let's compare this to Switzerland (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm), shall we ?

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 12:54 PM

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 12:55 PM

So what? The actual comparison here is with America, not Europe.
Because it is inconvenient for you to notice that gun control doesn't work ? That it only INCREASES crime - exponentially ? (http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm)

Aces High

10-08-2011, 12:57 PM

Yes right. Did you know that Britain has the highest number of violent crimes (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html) in all of Europe ?
Let's compare this to Switzerland (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm), shall we ?

I think that has more to do with the British DIY on the spot justice system than anything else.
You give someone some lip in the UK and its more than likely that you will get filled in.
Its just a done thing.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 12:59 PM

Because it is inconvenient for you to notice that gun control doesn't work ? That it only INCREASES crime - exponentially ? (http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm)

You're five times as likely to be murdered in the US than the UK. All the rest is special pleading.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 01:00 PM

I think that has more to do with the British DIY on the spot justice system than anything else.
You give someone some lip in the UK and its more than likely that you will get filled in.
Its just a done thing.
Britain seems to be a more violent country then the Netherlands (in overall). I have noticed it when I was there (and I was actually a bit surprised by it). Coventry seems to be a city with a lot of crime. And that with cities like Birmingham around the corner.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 01:01 PM

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 01:01 PM

You're five times as likely to be murdered in the US than the UK. All the rest is special pleading.
Bollocks. Depends on where you're going. If you're walking into a black ghetto in Britain you probably end up having a lead overdose or end up getting knifed (or when you're a girl: molested, severely raped). If you walk into a black ghetto in the United States it will be very much the same.

The only difference that in the United States (if I would be a citizen) I could shoot three or four of my attackers while in Britain I wouldn't stand a chance.

But mostly you're talking about petty crime though.
Ach.. there are more knife incidents, gun incidents, and other forms of violence in the ghettos of Birmingham then my entire country can put together.

Boudica

10-08-2011, 01:05 PM

So, you have loads of blacks. Wouldn't it be better, then, if they couldn't get hold of guns easily? Surely this is an argument for stricter, nationwide control? And to those who point to states and cities with controls being the most crime-ridden, this is completely specious, without borders.

Well, that's the thing :).. Studies suggest that over 50% of guns that are used in a violent crime are guns which were obtained illegally.. They were either traded amongst criminals or sold underground. It would be INCREDIBLE if they could not get a hold of guns so easily. But as I said, and as the above proves more so, this wouldn't stop criminals from getting a hold of guns, and it would only leave innocent people without a definite source of protection from criminals, while the criminals have this definite source..

Of course I want there to be stricter gun laws, in my opinion (as I said earlier) people are able to get guns too easily, they should have to have criminal background checks, training and other things of the sort before they can purchase one.. It is terrible that crimes involving the usage of guns occur.. But my outlook regarding this isn't the outlook of some stubborn ass that refuses to give up their gun and won't give up their gun freedom or something..

It is the outlook of a person who wants to make sure that innocent lives aren't left vulnerable and defenseless even more then they already are to criminals.. This would be doing so in my opinion unless there is a way to guarantee criminals not gaining access to guns.. This is coming from a person who has a mother that works in a shitty area due to our shitty economy which is known for thugs, rapes, and robberies and having a bit more peace at mind knowing that she is armed and could save her own life if one of these pieces of shits try to harm her.. This is coming from a person who has had a close friend avoid being severely harmed or killed by scumbags because of the fact that they were armed.

Don't mistake me for somebody that opposes a no gun law due to being selfish.. I would readily support a no gun law if there was a way for all guns to be destroyed and inaccessible.. However due to the circumstances I know that this is not yet an option.. I am happy that the crime rates are so low in Europe due to the banning of guns, I am very happy that people can feel safer because of this..

However unlike Europe, there is a country (Mexico) that we are attached to full of weapon trafficking.. Mexico is known for their massive amount of gangs which aide in weapon and drug trafficking which is growing by the day in my country.. Their scumbag gang members, etc are already in our country and their activity is growing, I can't imagine how much more it would grow if guns became illegal and they could make a fortune off of selling guns underground even more.. Things are different here unfortunately.. Different circumstances call for different measures..

Saturni

10-08-2011, 01:06 PM

It should be remembered that the numbers of firearm related homicides reported annually also contain the numbers of criminals shot dead legally by armed civilians. Something that is not normally mentioned.

Aces High

10-08-2011, 01:06 PM

Britain seems to be a more violent country then the Netherlands (in overall). I have noticed it when I was there (and I was actually a bit surprised by it). Coventry seems to be a city with a lot of crime. And that with cities like Birmingham around the corner.

Depends where you go in the UK,i have travelled all around Europe and i have never felt the menace that you can feel in certain parts of London.....Marseille,Paris,Napoli,Palermo are all pretty wild places but tame compared to certain areas of London.
Its not new either,i have read up on this and during the time Charles Dickens was writing Oliver,London and the surrounding areas were like the wild west.....with marauding gangs fighting and killing each other and young kids stabbing and robbing innocent people and each other.
Knife fights and the carrying of knives (shivs) is as old as the hills in London...and accepted practise.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 01:06 PM

Bollocks. Depends on where you're going. If you're walking into a black ghetto in Britain you probably end up having a lead overdose or end up getting knifed (or when you're a girl: molested, severely raped). If you walk into a black ghetto in the United States it will be very much the same.

The only difference that in the United States (if I would be a citizen) I could shoot three or four of my attackers while in Britain I wouldn't stand a chance.

Ach.. there are more knife incidents, gun incidents, and other forms of violence in the ghettos of Birmingham then my entire country can put together.

Don't walk into one, then.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 01:10 PM

Don't walk into one, then.
See: I have walked through ghettoes here in the Netherlands on several occasions and it's fairly easy to end up in one: all it takes is one wrong turn.

Let's see.. here in my town I have walked through the worst neighborhood (staggering home drunk would perhaps be a better description) when I was on my way home from the pub. I did that at night. Nothing happened.

Can I do the same thing through a neighbourhood in Birmingham ?

Depends where you go in the UK,i have travelled all around Europe and i have never felt the menace that you can feel in certain parts of London.....Marseille,Paris,Napoli,Palermo are all pretty wild places but tame compared to certain areas of London.
Its not new either,i have read up on this and during the time Charles Dickens was writing Oliver,London and the surrounding areas were like the wild west.....with marauding gangs fighting and killing each other and young kids stabbing and robbing innocent people and each other.
Knife fights and the carrying of knives (shivs) is as old as the hills in London...and accepted practise.
Yes.. violence is not just an immigration issue. It seems to be thing that is ingrained in British culture. I wonder why ?

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 01:11 PM

Well, that's the thing :).. Studies suggest that over 50% of guns that are used in a violent crime are guns which were obtained illegally.. They were either traded amongst criminals or sold underground. It would be INCREDIBLE if they could not get a hold of guns so easily. But as I said, and as the above proves more so, this wouldn't stop criminals from getting a hold of guns, and it would only leave innocent people without a definite source of protection from criminals, while the criminals have this definite source..

Of course I want there to be stricter gun laws, in my opinion (as I said earlier) people are able to get guns too easily, they should have to have criminal background checks, training and other things of the sort before they can purchase one.. It is terrible that crimes involving the usage of guns occur.. But my outlook regarding this isn't the outlook of some stubborn ass that refuses to give up their gun and won't give up their gun freedom or something..

It is the outlook of a person who wants to make sure that innocent lives aren't left vulnerable and defenseless even more then they already are to criminals.. This would be doing so in my opinion unless there is a way to guarantee criminals not gaining access to guns.. This is coming from a person who has a mother that works in a shitty area due to our shitty economy which is known for thugs, rapes, and robberies and having a bit more peace at mind knowing that she is armed and could save her own life if one of these pieces of shits try to harm her.. This is coming from a person who has had a close friend avoid being severely harmed or killed by scumbags because of the fact that they were armed.

Don't mistake me for somebody that opposes a no gun law due to being selfish.. I would readily support a no gun law if there was a way for all guns to be destroyed and inaccessible.. However due to the circumstances I know that this is not yet an option.. I am happy that the crime rates are so low in Europe due to the banning of guns, I am very happy that people can feel safer because of this..

However unlike Europe, there is a country (Mexico) that we are attached to full of weapon trafficking.. Mexico is known for their massive amount of gangs which aide in weapon and drug trafficking which is growing by the day in my country.. Their scumbag gang members, etc are already in our country and their activity is growing, I can't imagine how much more it would grow if guns became illegal and they could make a fortune off of selling guns underground even more.. Things are different here unfortunately.. Different circumstances call for different measures..

I fully agree that American circumstances are different. But without making a stand somewhere, you just end up being exactly like Mexico. Perhaps, as you say, there really is no other choice. Which is very sad.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 01:12 PM

See: I have walked through ghettoes here in the Netherlands on several occasions and it's fairly easy to end up in one: all it takes is one wrong turn.

Let's see.. here in my town I have walked through the worst neighborhood (staggering home drunk would perhaps be a better description) when I was on my way home from the pub. I did that at night. Nothing happened.

Can I do the same thing through a neighbourhood in Birmingham ?

Yes, I've done it many times. I've often walked the five miles home from town, late at night, through the densest Muslim areas in the city, with no trouble at all.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 01:15 PM

Yes, I've done it many times. I've often walked the five miles home from town, late at night, through the densest Muslim areas in the city, with no trouble at all.
That must be because you live there then. I remember this thing my ex told me: in her old neighbourhood some British girl had been raped by some Africans and the neighbourhood (mostly immigrant) wanted to have a go at the Africans.

Unfortunately the police protected the Africans.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 01:17 PM

That must be because you live there then. I remember this thing my ex told me: in her old neighbourhood some British girl had been raped by some Africans and the neighbourhood (mostly immigrant) wanted to have a go at the Africans.

Unfortunately the police protected the Africans.

I don't live in the Muslim areas (though the area I currently live in will no doubt become one soon).

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 01:18 PM

I don't live in the Muslim areas (though the area I currently live in will no doubt become one soon).
So how do you expect to deal with the onslaught when people are not allowed to have weapons but while you can be pretty certain that these Muslims will have weapons ?

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 01:20 PM

So how do you expect to deal with the onslaught when people are not allowed to have weapons but while you can be pretty certain that these Muslims will have weapons ?

I can actually be pretty certain that the Muslims don't have weapons.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 01:21 PM

I can actually be pretty certain that the Muslims don't have weapons.
Yeah right.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 01:22 PM

Yeah right.

Yes. For the simple reason that if they had, they would have used them.

Boudica

10-08-2011, 01:22 PM

I fully agree that American circumstances are different. But without making a stand somewhere, you just end up being exactly like Mexico. Perhaps, as you say, there really is no other choice. Which is very sad.

I agree with what you said about making a stand, etc... I will be waiting for the time when a strong leader comes along and puts together a plan which will be this countries stand that will not fall.. Until then, it truly is sad that there is no other choice, I wish that there was, and of course as to be expected it makes me feel uneasy to think about this countries future if this leader doesn't come along..

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 01:23 PM

However unlike Europe, there is a country (Mexico) that we are attached to full of weapon trafficking.. Mexico is known for their massive amount of gangs which aide in weapon and drug trafficking which is growing by the day in my country.. Their scumbag gang members, etc are already in our country and their activity is growing, I can't imagine how much more it would grow if guns became illegal and they could make a fortune off of selling guns underground even more.. Things are different here unfortunately.. Different circumstances call for different measures..
We have the former Eastern Bloc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc) for that. :thumb001:

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 01:24 PM

I agree with what you said about making a stand, etc... I will be waiting for the time when a strong leader comes along and puts together a plan which will be this countries stand that will not fall.. Until then, it truly is sad that there is no other choice, I wish that there was, and of course as to be expected it makes me feel uneasy to think about this countries future if this leader doesn't come along..

Such a leader had better come along quickly, before it's too late.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 01:24 PM

Yes. For the simple reason that if they had, they would have used them.
And they are using them as we speak. Or would you claim that all murders, muggings, rapes, burglaries (at gun-point) are carried out by native Britons and West Indies/African immigrants only ?

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 01:27 PM

And they are using them as we speak. Or would you claim that all murders, muggings, rapes, burglaries (at gun-point) are carried out by native Britons and West Indies/African immigrants only ?

Actually, such gun crime as there is, is indeed mainly confined to the black community. Muslims tend to concentrate on things like paedophile rings, who ply their victims with drugs, rather than use guns.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 01:27 PM

Crime can only flourish where there are a steady supply of victims. Don't want to b a victim, carry a gun.

It should also be worth noting that the one of the first things all Marxist/Communist/Socialist regimes do is ban the private ownership of firearms.

Again, something else to think about.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 01:29 PM

Actually, such gun crime as there is, is indeed mainly confined to the black community. Muslims tend to concentrate on things like paedophile rings, who ply their victims with drugs, rather than use guns.
While if you would have a gun you could keep them away from your daughters. :thumb001:

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 01:30 PM

While if you would have a gun you could keep them away from your daughters. :thumb001:

Yes. But if everyone thought like that, then the whole country would be awash with guns - and guess who'd end up with them?

Saturni

10-08-2011, 01:33 PM

Yes. But if everyone thought like that, then the whole country would be awash with guns - and guess who'd end up with them?

Yes, you'd have a society of polite and law-abiding citizens very quickly.

Troll's Puzzle

10-08-2011, 01:34 PM

We don't have a problem with guns here and I really hope it stays that way.

what guns problems there are, is with immigrants & their descendants.
be rid of them and it's good again :thumb001:

also,

Criminals disagree. And get their hardware one way, or another.

this is a myth, only very few (usually professional) criminals can get 'hardware'.

that's why britain is so 'full of knife crime' (in reality, it's 90% in london, 100% teenagers, and 90% blacks).

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 01:35 PM

Yes, you'd have a society of polite and law-abiding citizens very quickly.

Just as America has proved, because as everyone knows, Americans are the most polite and law-abiding people on earth.

Troll's Puzzle

10-08-2011, 01:37 PM

Just as America has proved, because as everyone knows, Americans are the most polite and law-abiding people on earth.

...wheras britan was famously over-polite and its police famously polite, friendly and UNARMED. :thumb001:

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 01:38 PM

Yes. But if everyone thought like that, then the whole country would be awash with guns - and guess who'd end up with them?
You, me ? With the criminals not nearly having as much control as they do now. Imagine this:

Young 18 year old girl goes home after clubbing and two men try to drag her off her bike and rape her.

What would happen ?

1) Guns are not allowed: she gets raped mercilessly. The perpetrators, who are both immigrants, are never found. As less then 20 percent of all rape cases in the Netherlands gets actually solved nowadays.

2) Guns are allowed: she draws out a gun and before number 1 can grab her leg she shoots him straight between the eyes. Number 2 tries to run but catches a bullet in the back of his head. Girl calls the police. Police arrives at the scene and both bodies are taken away. Girl gets interrogated and is brought home. Case closed. Leave it to the coroner.

Old woman goes home after shopping. A mugger approaches her in a dark alleyway wielding a knife.

1) Guns are now allowed: old woman does not have a gun as they are not allowed and she gets mugged, beaten up and molested.

2) Guns are allowed: and she empties a full clip of her Beretta 3032 Tomcat on the mugger who dies on the spot. Permanently taken out of the food chain and no longer a threat to society. Old woman calls the police who arrives at the scene and the body is taken away. Old woman is interrogated and brought home. Case closed. Leave it to the coroner.

I know what I would prefer.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 01:39 PM

Just as America has proved, because as everyone knows, Americans are the most polite and law-abiding people on earth.

Maybe not on the planet, but we do alright.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 01:42 PM

You, me ? With the criminals not nearly having as much control as they do now. Imagine this:

Young 18 year old girl goes home after clubbing and two men try to drag her off her bike and rape her.

What would happen ?

1) Guns are not allowed: she gets raped mercilessly. The perpetrators, who are both immigrants, are never found. As less then 20 percent of all rape cases in the Netherlands gets actually solved nowadays.

2) Guns are allowed: she draws out a gun and before number 1 can grab her leg she shoots him straight between the eyes. Number 2 tries to run but catches a bullet in the back of his head. Girl calls the police. Police arrives at the scene and both bodies are taken away. Girl gets interrogated and is brought home. Case closed. Leave it to the coroner.

Old woman goes home after shopping. A mugger approaches her in a dark alleyway wielding a knife.

1) Guns are now allowed: old woman does not have a gun as they are not allowed and she gets mugged, beaten up and molested.

2) Guns are allowed: and she empties a full clip of her Beretta 3032 Tomcat on the mugger who dies on the spot. Permanently taken out of the food chain and no longer a threat to society. Old woman calls the police who arrives at the scene and the body is taken away. Old woman is interrogated and brought home. Case closed. Leave it to the coroner.

I know what I would prefer.

What you've created there is a nightmare scenario in which everyone will be forced to have guns, whether they want to or not. How about people too old, frail or disabled to use them? How about those who can't afford them, or don't want to? And how about the millions of extra guns in circulation that will end up in the hands of the criminals? It would be like an insane arms race.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 01:47 PM

Hevneren

10-08-2011, 01:49 PM

I choose to believe Norwegians are not killing one another because they're civilized human beings, not because they don't have access to firearms.

There are mass killings in Africa and their weapon of choice is the machete.

We do have access to firearms, they're just not as readily available as in the US. Fully automatic weapons are not legal in this country, but semi-automatic handguns, rifles, shotguns, bolt-action rifles etc. are legal. It's mainly hunting weapons, if you have a license for it, but you can also get a license for a handgun if you're a member of a gun club.

With rifles, there's a restriction on magazine size. The rifle can only have 4 bullets in the magazine and 1 in the chamber, I believe. This prevents it from being used like an assault rifle. However, this restriction can be circumvented by buying 30 round magazines from the US and other places.

Hevneren

10-08-2011, 02:03 PM

That's a fair point but do you support gun control in places like Norway and Japan where the populations are more homogeneous?

I know you weren't asking me, but since I live in Norway I can tell you that to me over 12% of the population being immigrants, is not homogenous. That being said, not all of these 12% are non-European or non-Western. We have tens of thousands of Swedes, Danes, Poles and thousands of Brits, Germans, Dutchmen, white Americans etc. living in this country, but at least 2/3 of that 12% are Turkish, Asian, Middle Eastern and African.

Some of the immigrants are illiterate, meaning they can't even read or write in their own language, let alone in ours, and in Oslo you have immigrant gangs consisting mainly of Pakistanis and Vietnamese. They're occasionally known to be shooting at each other, causing destruction and havoc on the streets of Oslo.

Gun-related violence is still rare in this country, but it happens, and more often than not it's immigrants who have shootouts.

Personally, I favour a mild gun control, in the sense that it shouldn't be too hard for a sane, law abiding citizen to obtain a handgun, for instance. However, I fail to see the necessity of having machine guns and automatic weapons such as that readily available as long as you're 18.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 02:07 PM

What you've created there is a nightmare scenario in which everyone will be forced to have guns, whether they want to or not. How about people too old, frail or disabled to use them? How about those who can't afford them, or don't want to? And how about the millions of extra guns in circulation that will end up in the hands of the criminals? It would be like an insane arms race.
Bollocks. There are guns that can be adapted to the needs of the frail old and disabled. Besides.. in America there are grannies that fire sub-machineguns like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB7iz1HTh9U). Here in Europe she would have been mugged.. while over there she can shoot them on the spot. And while some guns may end up with criminals the population themselves are armed as well.

Your situation is a nightmare scenario: total control for a state (but then again: you want your neopaganhippie theocracy so..) and criminals. Thus your idea is a slave society.

Mine is one with people fighting back against crime. My idea is a society of citizens.

Hevneren

10-08-2011, 02:11 PM

Most Europeans seem to favor gun control. Why? I do not know. But I believe this may have something to do with the way some Europeans see themselves in relation to the State. They still see themselves as "subjects", i.e., property of some divinely appointed king, and, as such, believe that only this king may grant them them privilege of going about armed.

:rolleyes:

What a load of rubbish.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 02:12 PM

Saturni

10-08-2011, 02:13 PM

Bollocks. There are guns that can be adapted to the needs of the frail old and disabled. Besides.. in America there are grannies that fire with sub-machineguns like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB7iz1HTh9U). Here in Europe she would have been mugged.. while over there she can shoot them on the spot. And while some guns may end up with criminals the population themselves are armed as well.

Your situation is a nightmare scenario: total control for a state (but then again: you want your neopaganhippie theocracy so..) and criminals. Thus your idea is a slave society.

Mine is one with people fighting back against crime. My idea is a society of citizens.

Each citizen should, ideally, be a self-contained state. In essence jury, jury, and, if need be, executioner.

The problem is that people get lazy and are all too willing to let the police do the jobs that they should, as civic minded citizens, be doing themselves.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 02:23 PM

Each citizen should, ideally, be a self-contained state. In essence jury, jury, and, if need be, executioner.

The problem is that people get lazy and are all too willing to let the police do the jobs that they should, as civic minded citizens, be doing themselves.
Agreed. But I still think that the police has a role to play. Someone, after all, needs to record a statement and remove the body - handing it over to the coroner.

And if the criminal survives: he needs to be arrested.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 02:38 PM

Lol, I just hope the typo cops don't catch me! :D

The purpose of cops are to clean up/process a crime scene. It is not their job to be pro-active, for if it was, you'd be living in a police state.

Also, talk to "line" policemen, the ones who actually walk a beat. They'll tell you that the best remedy for crime is an armed civilian populace.

Germanicus

10-08-2011, 02:58 PM

I think that I have already addressed that. There is no need to check the statistics, I don't need to think of what would be the case since there is an obvious example right at hand.. And one more thing, I'm not very likely to be murdered (unlike you) if some one decides to harm me (people tend to harm people) because I am armed.

Although I ALREADY addressed the whole crime thing, I'll go again.. The UK has a population of only 61 million while America has a population of over 300 million.. America's population is almost 5 times larger then the UK's, this makes your comparison in no way reliable or in anyway meaningful at all.. Also there are only around 650,000 blacks in ALL of the UK which is a laughable amount in comparison to America's amount of over 40 million, not to mention the amount of Mexicans. As I said earlier, they create well over half of our countries crimes.. Also as I will say again, come to me when you have an example of a place which A:has anywhere near the amount of people and vast variety of demographics & B:has a shit load of negros and mexicans, until then, stop using shitty examples which would never hold up in a debate as proof of jack shit..

Sorry mate but there are approximately 2,000,000, around 3% of the population are black. Also a large number of mixed race Britons have sub saharan African descent.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 03:08 PM

:rolleyes:

What a load of rubbish.

I agree. Why any free man would voluntarily put himself under the yoke of "king" is beyond me. But, believe it or not, some people still, in their hearts, crave to be slaves.

Hevneren

10-08-2011, 03:17 PM

I agree. Why any free man would voluntarily put himself under the yoke of "king" is beyond me. But, believe it or not, some people still, in their hearts, crave to be slaves.

Your "reasoning" was a load of rubbish.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 03:19 PM

Your "reasoning" was a load of rubbish.

And what reasoning was that?

Damião de Góis

10-08-2011, 03:27 PM

In Portugal they implemented restrict gun laws in 2006 but in the last decade the violent criminality peaked in 2008 and stayed high since then.

No it didn't...

European blood

10-08-2011, 03:46 PM

No it didn't...

LOL!

You are a liar.

Criminalidade atinge a maior subida de sempre

http://www.dn.pt/inicio/interior.aspx?content_id=1174094

Criminalidade não baixou em 2009

http://www.inverbis.net/opc/criminalidade-nao-baixou-2009.html

Criminalidade violenta aumentou em 2009

http://publico.pt/Sociedade/criminalidade-violenta-aumentou-em-2009-1426554

Criminalidade em 2010 "baixou ligeiramente"

http://www.jn.pt/PaginaInicial/Policia/Interior.aspx?content_id=1817356

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 03:54 PM

Bollocks. There are guns that can be adapted to the needs of the frail old and disabled. Besides.. in America there are grannies that fire sub-machineguns like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB7iz1HTh9U). Here in Europe she would have been mugged.. while over there she can shoot them on the spot. And while some guns may end up with criminals the population themselves are armed as well.

Your situation is a nightmare scenario: total control for a state (but then again: you want your neopaganhippie theocracy so..) and criminals. Thus your idea is a slave society.

Mine is one with people fighting back against crime. My idea is a society of citizens.

What about blind people, for example? Are there any guns adapted for their use?

Far better to attack the causes of crime, such as huge, foreign descended populations in our midst, and a sense of alienation and lack of respect.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 03:56 PM

Damião de Góis

10-08-2011, 03:57 PM

LOL!

You are a liar.

Criminalidade atinge a maior subida de sempre

http://www.dn.pt/inicio/interior.aspx?content_id=1174094

Criminalidade não baixou em 2009

http://www.inverbis.net/opc/criminalidade-nao-baixou-2009.html

Criminalidade violenta aumentou em 2009

http://publico.pt/Sociedade/criminalidade-violenta-aumentou-em-2009-1426554

Criminalidade em 2010 "baixou ligeiramente"

http://www.jn.pt/PaginaInicial/Policia/Interior.aspx?content_id=1817356

Tell me, where do you live? I live between Setúbal and Lisbon. The most "violent" place i would say. And from living there, i can say that things aren't as bad as they were in 2008. I don't base my opinion on internet links.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 03:58 PM

What about blind people, for example? Are there any guns adapted for their use?

Far better to attack the causes of crime, such as huge, foreign descended populations in our midst, and a sense of alienation and lack of respect.
Well naturally they can't hold a gun... "facepalms" but you forget that their hearing is usually excellent and that pepperspray is now considered an illegal weapon. If they could use that against an attacker they can still do some damage. But even when you get rid of the immigrants it wouldn't help much but weapons would be less needed then as some of the crime will disappear. But weapons are not just there to fight crime but also when needed protect oneself against an overzealous government.

The main difference between a slave and a citizen is that the latter has access to weapons.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 03:59 PM

You're talking about anarchy.
And you about fascism. Or about that theocracy with knee-bending teenage girls with all power in the hands of a couple of priests, no ? ;)

Saturni

10-08-2011, 04:02 PM

You're talking about anarchy.

I suppose that to someone ill-equipped to handle the responsibilities of being a free man that this might sound like an invitation to anarchy, but you must remember that not all people are born to the yoke. Some, believe it or not, actually take steps to secure their own personal safety rather than expect the state to do it for them.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 04:02 PM

Well naturally they can't hold a gun... "facepalms". But even when you get rid of the immigrants it wouldn't help much but weapons would be less needed then as some of the crime will disappear. But weapons are not just there to fight crime but also when needed protect oneself against an overzealous government.

The main difference between a slave and a citizen is that the latter has access to weapons.

The main difference between arnarchy and civilisation is that civilisation compromises some freedoms for the greater good. So you either have the freedom to own guns, or to live in a peaceful society. Whilst a few gun-toting, macho types with small brains and small penises might choose the former, most people would choose the latter.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 04:04 PM

And you about fascism. Or about that theocracy with knee-bending teenage girls with all power in the hands of a couple of priests, no ? ;)

As you so quickly point out, arnarchy and fascism are not the only two choices on the table. But to correct your error, in our proposals there are no priests at all.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 04:05 PM

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 04:06 PM

I suppose that to someone ill-equipped to handle the responsibilities of being a free man that this might sound like an invitation to anarchy, but you must remember that not all people are born to the yoke. Some, believe it or not, actually take steps to secure their own personal safety rather than expect the state to do it for them.

But you would force everyone to do that, or end up as slaves. And now, perhaps, I understand your reasoning a little better.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 04:08 PM

The main difference between arnarchy and civilisation is that civilisation compromises some freedoms for the greater good. So you either have the freedom to own guns, or to live in a peaceful society. Whilst a few gun-toting, macho types with small brains and small penises might choose the former, most people would choose the latter.
You've been reading The Guardian too much for your own good. Well it's no anarchy: it's actually a free society where people look after themselves and where free citizens would be more then willing to help out someone in need without calling the coppers and locking the door.

Because people actually should have the responsibility to look after their neighbours, to defend people that are attacked and to defend their area or country (thus coupled with military service)

Boudica

10-08-2011, 04:08 PM

Sorry mate but there are approximately 2,000,000, around 3% of the population are black. Also a large number of mixed race Britons have sub saharan African descent.

I gathered the information from a reliable source. If you have a more reliable one, go for it. I wasn't referring to mixed beings anyway. However 2 million is still nothing in amount to 40 million unless you think that a population 20 times less makes a difference in my reasoning in some way.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 04:09 PM

You've been reading The Guardian too much for your own good. Well it's no anarchy: it's actually a free society where people look after themselves and where free citizens would be more then willing to help out someone in need without calling the coppers and locking the door.

I've never read that rag in my life.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 04:11 PM

But you would force everyone to do that, or end up as slaves. And now, perhaps, I understand your reasoning a little better.

Nah, I leave the forcing to statist losers who live in perpetual fear.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 04:12 PM

Nah, I leave the forcing to statist losers who live in perpetual fear.

In your society, with guns everywhere and no effective police, all citizens would have to be armed, or killed. Can't you see how horrendous that would be? That's true perpetual fear. I don't live in fear at all.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 04:12 PM

I've never read that rag in my life.
You sound like the average Guardian-reader though. The bluddy prototype.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 04:14 PM

You sound like the average Guardian-reader though. The bluddy prototype.

How many Guardian readers would like to see foreigners leave?

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 04:15 PM

How many Guardian readers would like to see foreigners leave?
Quite a few but they would keep quiet about it as it is non-PC. For the rest you really fit the description of a liberal, big-statist hippie. ;)

Saturni

10-08-2011, 04:39 PM

In your society, with guns everywhere and no effective police, all citizens would have to be armed, or killed. Can't you see how horrendous that would be? That's true perpetual fear. I don't live in fear at all.

Lol, in my society?!? I wasn't aware that I owned one, but by reading some of these posts, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if I did. :D

An over-reliance on police protection is one of the surest signs if know of that a person has ceased being being a citizen and has become a slave to the state.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 04:42 PM

Lol, in my society?!? I wasn't aware that I owned one, but by reading some of these posts, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if I did. :D

An over-reliance on police protection is one of the surest signs if know of that a person has ceased being being a citizen and has become a slave to the state.

In the society you advocate, with no effective police and awash with guns, the strong would dominate the weak. That's why laws exist, of course, to protect folk from not only criminals, but also people like you.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 04:44 PM

Quite a few but they would keep quiet about it as it is non-PC. For the rest you really fit the description of a liberal, big-statist hippie. ;)

The world is full of crypto-hippies masquerading as wolves. But the mask slips fast once you start bringing up the role the state should be allowed to play in the lives of the citizens. Once exposed they all start in with the "wouldn't the world be wonderful if we just handed over all our rights to the state and let them make all our decisions for us?"

In other words, Skadi-speak.

morski

10-08-2011, 04:48 PM

In the society you advocate, with no effective police and awash with guns, the strong would dominate the weak. That's why laws exist, of course, to protect folk from not only criminals, but also people like you.

I really don`t see where effective police and armed citizenry collide.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 04:50 PM

I really don`t see where effective police and armed citizenry collide.

They don't. They are mutually supportive.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 04:51 PM

I really don`t see where effective police and armed citizenry collide.

The previous poster was advocating a police force stripped of powers, and guns freely available.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 04:52 PM

The previous poster was advocating a police force stripped of powers, and guns freely available.
No he doesn't.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 04:55 PM

No he doesn't.

Wasn't it he who said the role of the police should merely be to clean up after a citizen shooting a criminal?

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 04:57 PM

Wasn't it he who said the role of the police should merely be to clean up after a citizen shooting a criminal?
Yes. That's their key role. What else do you want to police to do after a break-in and a rape of an unarmed citizen while the criminal has already left and left no DNA-traces ?

Today.. they are pretty bloody useless. They don't serve to protect you but to protect the state. That's why they always come out in force during a strike but are nowhere to be seen when some girl has been raped or someone has been robbed or stabbed.

The same is there when they can fine someone: they will do so with great pleasure and the same goes for the motorway police. They are always on the look-out for people to fine. But helping people ? Hell no !

Saturni

10-08-2011, 05:02 PM

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

morski

10-08-2011, 05:05 PM

Wasn't it he who said the role of the police should merely be to clean up after a citizen shooting a criminal?

Anyhow, you`d beg for a shotgun, and why not some explosives, if you were living in Bulgarian countryside with all the marauding gypos armed with knives, axes, hammers, poles, crowbars, pipes and a baaad attitude + no remorse allways performing their dirty deeds en mass. Really, believe me, some of your countrymen are allready convinced by personal experience.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 05:07 PM

Wasn't it he who said the role of the police should merely be to clean up after a citizen shooting a criminal?

Constitutionally speaking, that is what the civilian police force is there to do. To respond to crimes, not to take preemptive measures to thwart them. Although the police do have the right to detain and question those whom they feel might pose an immediate threat to the peace.

It is not the policeman's job to be your bodyguard. That is your responsibility and yours alone.

Of course if you chose not to exercise that right don't be surprised when you find yourself in some gulag one day. :thumb001:

beaver

10-08-2011, 05:10 PM

del

beaver

10-08-2011, 05:11 PM

Saturni

10-08-2011, 05:13 PM

Anyhow, you`d beg for a shotgun, and why not some explosives, if you were living in Bulgarian countryside with all the marauding gypos armed with knives, axes, hammers, poles, crowbars, pipes and a baaad attitude + no remorse allways performing their dirty deeds en mass. Really, believe me, some of your countrymen are allready convinced by personal expirience.

I would think a few AKs in the hands of some determined Bulgars would make all the difference against the criminal predation of gypsies.

Aces High

10-08-2011, 05:13 PM

I really don`t see where effective police and armed citizenry collide.

When the police become nothing more than corporate security and lose their individual status.......drones controlled by big business.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 05:19 PM

When the police become nothing more than corporate security and lose their individual status.......drones controlled by big business.
That's what they are now.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 05:20 PM

Yes. That's their key role. What else do you want to police to do after a break-in and a rape of an unarmed citizen while the criminal has already left and left no DNA-traces ?

Today.. they are pretty bloody useless. They don't serve to protect you but to protect the state. That's why they always come out in force during a strike but are nowhere to be seen when some girl has been raped or someone has been robbed or stabbed.

The same is there when they can fine someone: they will do so with great pleasure and the same goes for the motorway police. They are always on the look-out for people to fine. But helping people ? Hell no !

That's why we need far more police. See our manifesto.

morski

10-08-2011, 05:21 PM

When the police become nothing more than corporate security and lose their individual status.......drones controlled by big business.

I have to agree with that statement.

I would think a few AKs in the hands of some determined Bulgars would make all the difference against the criminal predation of gypsies.

Sadly the bulgars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars)are no longer an operational force and the notoriously slow Bulgarian judiciary inquiry and courts of law are very quick to convict and sentence a responsible citizen in said circumstances.

Aces High

10-08-2011, 05:21 PM

That's what they are now.

Not in the UK,maybe in the US this is the case.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 05:22 PM

Saturni

10-08-2011, 05:22 PM

I've voted for
I favor a mild form of gun control
but after some thoughts I'm now against any control and for the model of Wild West. Finally, every person in the Russian Empire had the right to carry freely any gun. Even the Tsar couldn't make some limitations here.

It should be remembered that organized municipal police forces are a relatively recent phenomenon. Prior to that, people had no problems handling their own affairs.

While I do not dislike the police, they do have the hard and unenviable jobs of cleaning up the worst society has to offer, I still think they are, for the most part, a redundancy. The armed citizen is just as capable as any municipal police force of keeping order.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 05:22 PM

Saturni

10-08-2011, 05:23 PM

Jefferson was a traitor. He was also writing at a time before the invention of modern, high tech weapons.

Traitor to whom? Petty tyrants and statist thugs?

Joe McCarthy

10-08-2011, 05:31 PM

Jefferson was a traitor. He was also writing at a time before the invention of modern, high tech weapons.

As I've mentioned before the American Revolution was sparked over gun control:

http://www.eoffshore.com/real-reason-for-gun-ownership

The American Revolution began in a dispute over gun control when British Redcoats marched toward Lexington and Concord to disarm farmers there.

In light of this perhaps it's understandable why the UK has become a gun control Mecca.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 05:32 PM

As I've mentioned before the American Revolution was sparked over gun control:

http://www.eoffshore.com/real-reason-for-gun-ownership

In light of this perhaps it's understandably why the UK has become a gun control Mecca.

Whereas America has become a Mecca for crime and murder. You make your choices and live with the results.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 05:35 PM

Jefferson was a traitor. He was also writing at a time before the invention of modern, high tech weapons.

A people are sovereign. A ruler ... isn't.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 05:36 PM

That's why we need far more police. See our manifesto.
No we don't. They cost money and are never on the beat - unless of course they can fine people for breaking some obscure traffic law. We need less criminals and We The People can sort it out for ourselves and I, frankly, don't care about your paedophiliac manifesto.

research_centre

10-08-2011, 05:38 PM

Jefferson was a traitor. He was also writing at a time before the invention of modern, high tech weapons.

Well, we know he was a traitor to his own race. He clearly thought nothing of fucking and impregnating his Negroid slaves.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 05:42 PM

Whereas America has become a Mecca for crime and murder. You make your choices and live with the results.

Rather a free man in a hostile environment then a slave in a people's commune.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 05:42 PM

Rather a free man in a hostile environment then a slave in a people's commune.
Well Britain isn't a people's commune. If only it was as communes are voluntary associations where people are free and equal. This is just big government. Tyranny masquerading as representative democracy.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 05:44 PM

Well, we know he was a traitor to his own race. He clearly thought nothing of fucking and impregnating his Negroid slaves.

A man has the right to do whatever he wants with his own property. :thumb001:

research_centre

10-08-2011, 05:46 PM

A man has the right to do whatever he wants with his own property. :thumb001:

Good point, but still doesn't excuse him.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 05:46 PM

A man has the right to do whatever he wants with his own property. :thumb001:
I am against slavery as a society that is half-free, half-slave (sounds a lot like today: freedom for the rich.. slavery for the rest) is not and can not be a free society.

Joe McCarthy

10-08-2011, 05:55 PM

Well, we know he was a traitor to his own race.

No, we don't:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/30/new-book-disputes-claim-jefferson-fathered-childre/print/

In a book due out Thursday, eminent scholars say it's unlikely that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings' children, disputing a decade's worth of conventional wisdom that the author of the Declaration of Independence sired offspring with one of his slaves.

research_centre

10-08-2011, 06:00 PM

No, we don't:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/30/new-book-disputes-claim-jefferson-fathered-childre/print/

Finally, then some have come to their senses to realise what I have thought for nearly 25 years about Hemings and their current lot. Thank you.

This will be read.:thumb001:

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 06:01 PM

Rather a free man in a hostile environment then a slave in a people's commune.

Is that your solution to the problems of your society - more of the same? Don't you think that displays rather limited thinking?

There is much about our society here that needs changing. But one of its resounding successes is gun control, because the results speak for themselves. All you have in argument against it are slogans.

morski

10-08-2011, 06:06 PM

Bah, Wulfhere, I am paying you a visit with my big muscles and my big gun and no Bobby`s gonna stand in my way :D lol

Saturni

10-08-2011, 06:29 PM

Is that your solution to the problems of your society - more of the same? Don't you think that displays rather limited thinking?

There is much about our society here that needs changing. But one of its resounding successes is gun control, because the results speak for themselves. All you have in argument against it are slogans.

Being born a free man, I have the choice of arming myself, if I so wish. Can you say the same for yourself?

I'm sure it's tempting for those who live under repressive/authoritarian/totalitarian regimes to think of themselves as "enlightened" because their governments treat them as chattel. And to those people I say more power to you. Build whatever fantasy worlds in your heads you like to try and rationalize the fact that you have been stripped of your most fundamental right as a human being.

Although it sounds to me like you have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome. :D

Saturni

10-08-2011, 06:30 PM

Bah, Wulfhere, I am paying you a visit with my big muscles and my big gun and no Bobby`s gonna stand in my way :D lol

Bring some gypsies as well! :D

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 06:37 PM

Being born a free man, I have the choice of arming myself, if I so wish. Can you say the same for yourself?

I'm sure it's tempting for those who live under repressive/authoritarian/totalitarian regimes to think of themselves as "enlightened" because their governments treat them as chattel. And to those people I say more power to you. Build whatever fantasy worlds in your heads you like to try and rationalize the fact that you have been stripped of your most fundamental right as a human being.

Although it sounds to me like you have a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome. :D
In a free society the government is afraid of the people. In an unfree society the people have to fear the government.

What we need are proper gezagsverhoudingen (it's a Dutch word.. I am not sure how to translate it to English). It has to be made clear who is in control and who is not and that's what the government should learn: they aren't and they shouldn't be. We The People are and ought to be in control.

The government should serve us and not the other way around. And if they don't get the point -- there should be a revolution - if necessary violent.

If We The People want something which is in accordance with the Constitution then the government should hasten to get it sorted and if they don't get the message then We The People will show them how it's done: by chopping their bloody heads off and do it regardless.. and after which we organise new elections.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 07:05 PM

All of history's despots and dictators knew that the only way they could keep control over the populace was to strip them of their only real means of resistance, privately owned firearms.

Damião de Góis

10-08-2011, 10:06 PM

Stleyfourgenfehnourk

10-08-2011, 10:17 PM

Actually, the opposite has been proven. See here:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I bet it has been commissioned by the American gun lobby. :)

Anyway it's wrong how here all are speaking of criminals like robbers and snatchers,
in many countries the high rate of fire-arms homicides is not always caused by habitual criminals ...but by common people, I mean for example husbands who kill wifes because they are jealous or something else...
The reason is that where there is not a gun distribution control anyone could become a potential killer, because it's simpler to kill a person with a fire arm than using a knife!

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:04 PM

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:06 PM

All of history's despots and dictators knew that the only way they could keep control over the populace was to strip them of their only real means of resistance, privately owned firearms.

Please stop swallowing wholesale the propaganda you're being fed.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:08 PM

Please stop swallowing wholesale the propaganda you're being fed.
The same could be said to you.

No, I live in a peaceful society. Sounds like you've never experienced that. I pity you.
Britain a peaceful society ? Since when ? I like Britain but Britain is anything but a peaceful, stable, democratic society.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:10 PM

The same could be said to you.

Inaccurately, though. If you've read our manifesto, you'll see we follow no one's agenda.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:11 PM

Inaccurately, though. If you've read our manifesto, you'll see we follow no one's agenda.
That manifesto of yours might just as well serve as the manifesto of the Vereniging MARTIJN. And that's not a compliment.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:13 PM

That manifesto of yours might just as well serve as the manifesto of the Vereniging MARTIJN. And that's not a compliment.

I don't care. I believe I'm the only one on this forum who has actually organised something in real life, rather than confining my activity to an Internet talking shop.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:14 PM

I don't care. I believe I'm the only one on this forum who has actually organised something in real life, rather than confining my activity to an Internet talking shop.
By creating a website from which you're the sole member. Come on, Wulfhere, you don't fool us.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:14 PM

My creating a website from which you're the sole member. Come on, Wulfhere, you don't fool us.

We have over 200 members.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:16 PM

We have over 200 members.
199 of which being your alter ego's. Come on, man. Your ideas are so ridiculous that I don't think that English people would fall for it.

English are too intelligent for such lunacy. Even Mercians.. :D
Hell.. even Brummies.. :D

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:18 PM

199 of which being your alter ego's. Come on, man. Your ideas are so ridiculous that I don't think that British people would fall for it.

Check our "Join" page if you don't believe me. Or not, I really don't care. The fact is that we're doing something.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:21 PM

Check our "Join" page if you don't believe me. Or not, I really don't care. The fact is that we're doing something.
Don't speak in plural as it is merely your own private delusion. You're not doing anything except for creating a website with pictures of young girls taken from Google and a "religious idea" based on THE hoax of the 19th century.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:23 PM

Don't speak in plural as it is merely your own private delusion. You're not doing anything except for creating a website with pictures of young girls taken from Google and a "religious idea" based on THE hoax of the 19th century.

No, if you check out our "Membership" and "Join" pages, it will take you to our Facebook group. And there you will see exactly what we are, and what we do.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:26 PM

No, if you check out our "Membership" and "Join" pages, it will take you to our Facebook group. And there you will see exactly what we are, and what we do.
Well I only need to check your website to find out that you have used pictures that don't belong to you (for example: the "Women Police" which is just an ordinary sports team for 14/15 year olds) .

The same goes for the video of a "religious service" which is just a Wickerman Ceremony belonging to a Mel Simpson.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:27 PM

Well I only need to check your website to find out that you have used pictures that don't belong to you (for example: the "Women Police" which is just an ordinary sports team for 14/15 year olds) .

The same goes for the video of a "religious service" which is just a Wickerman Ceremony belonging to a Mel Simpson.

And did you check out our Facebook group?

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:29 PM

And did you check out our Facebook group?
I did. I'll tell you what. Your ideas regarding "priestesses are "just there to hide something far more sinister: paedophilia.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:31 PM

I did. I'll tell you what. Your ideas regarding "priestesses are "just there to hide something far more sinister: paedophilia.

Our priestesses are trained from the age of 18 upwards, I find your remarks quite libellous, in fact.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:32 PM

My name is no secret to many members here, since I'm a published author. But since our priestesses are trained from the age of 18 upwards, I find your remarks quite libellous, in fact.
That must have changed because you changed your website as well. It used to be 12 year olds doing squats, no ? Come on, Wulfhere, we know you by now.

From your own website (http://sovereignmercia.webs.com/priestesshood.htm):

At the age of 12, priestesses shall take lifelong vows to abstain from sex and orgasm, to forsake all worldly garments and goods, and to avoid meat, intoxicants and other bodily pollutants. They shall wear only the natural fabrics worn by Pagan priestesses in ancient times. For six years they shall be trained in the performance of ritual dance, and from the age of 18, as full priestesses, shall assist their High Priestess in leading public worship. At 24, they shall be classed as elders, entering the community as teachers, lawyers and judges, and shall also be eligible for appointment as High Priestesses.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:36 PM

That must have changed because you changed your website as well. It used to be 12 year olds doing squats, no ? Come on, Wulfhere, we know you by now.

From your own website (http://sovereignmercia.webs.com/priestesshood.htm):

How is it paedophilia to ban them from having sex?

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:38 PM

How is it paedophilia to ban them from having sex?
It's this weird obsession about taking 12 year olds away from their home - disturbing their natural life. Just another weird, pervert fantasy.

And we all know what kind of ritual dance by now: doing squats. Because that probably hasn't changed.

Saturni

10-08-2011, 11:41 PM

It's this weird obsession about taking 12 year olds away from their home - disturbing their natural life. Just another weird, pervert fantasy.

And we all know what kind of ritual dance by now: doing squats. Because that probably hasn't changed.

No wonder this creep wants to ban guns.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:42 PM

No wonder this creep wants to ban guns.
He also got hold of my IP when I checked the Facebook page. Which is a dumb error of him because I will go to the police.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:45 PM

He also got hold of my IP when I checked the Facebook page. Which is a dumb error of him because I will go to the police.

With what, exactly?

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:47 PM

With what, exactly?
Hmm I think copyright violations would be a nice start. And yes: it smells like paedophilia. I bet the police will be very interested. Here they would be already at your doorstep.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:49 PM

Hmm I think copyright violations would be a nice start. And yes: it smells like paedophilia. I bet the police will be very interested. Here they would be already at your doorstep.

Funny how when push comes to shove, those advocating independence from the police will run crying to them, saying, "Mommy, do something!"

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:49 PM

Funny how when push comes to shove, those advocating independence from the police will run crying to them, saying, "Mommy, do something!"
Nah. I am not in Britain so I can't stop you myself (which I would if I was there.. don't you worry about that) but I am thinking of local children which could be in danger with you on the street.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:50 PM

Nah. I am not in Britain so I can't stop you myself (which I would if I was there.. don't you worry about that) but I am thinking of local children which could be in danger with you on the street.

In danger of what?

Saturni

10-08-2011, 11:51 PM

Hmm I think copyright violations would be a nice start. And yes: it smells like paedophilia. I bet the police will be very interested. Here they would be already at your doorstep.

This guy could also be a plant, whose purpose it could be to draw similar "minded" types via his site.

Anyways, I'd report his to this site's admin just to be safe.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:51 PM

In danger of what?
You know damn well what I mean.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:52 PM

This guy could also be a plant, whose purpose it could be to draw similar "minded" types via his site.
I doubt it.

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:53 PM

You know damn well what I mean.

Drawing people to train for a life of celibacy as priestesses? Sorry, you've lost me.

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:55 PM

Drawing people to train for a life of celibacy as priestesses? Sorry, you've lost me.
Doing squats, no ? While they were naked. You don't write that on your new site anymore but that is the "ritual dance" ("kneebends" as you call them).

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:56 PM

Doing squats, no ? While they were naked. You don't write that on your new site anymore but that is the "ritual dance" ("kneebends" as you call them).

Naked? Where did you get that from?

The Lawspeaker

10-08-2011, 11:57 PM

Naked? Where did you get that from?
You try to hide it now but you have said here on the forum and on the old website. Which is quite funny as he deleted the old website (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18531&highlight=knee-bends).

Wulfhere

10-08-2011, 11:59 PM

You try to hide it now but you have said here on the forum and on the old website.

No, I haven't.

The Lawspeaker

10-09-2011, 12:00 AM

No, I haven't.
Just about everyone knows here.

Joe McCarthy

10-09-2011, 12:00 AM

Just a reminder what this thread is about.

The Lawspeaker

10-09-2011, 12:01 AM

Just a reminder what this thread is about. I am quite sure you know my position by now. What are the others thinking about it ?

Sikeliot

10-09-2011, 12:03 AM

Much of what has come up in this thread in the past few pages is very serious.. I hope you all realize. Either way, we either need to have it stay on topic or close the thread and if anyone has any specific issues they feel attention should be given to, simply report them.

The Lawspeaker

10-09-2011, 12:09 AM

When it comes to gun control: it could be linked to the idea of compulsory military service. In Switzerland those undergoing military service are allowed to bring their weapons home. So for the sake of equality I suppose that both men and women at the age of 21 should be called up for 18 months service after and during which they can bring their weapons home as well as some munition and they will be called up in case of war. They will undergo a weekend training a month though (mandatory) until they reach the age of 40 as well as a week of a mandatory repeat exercise (annually) which would involve actual military maneuvers. It would make the army a kind of militia.. A citizen army.

It could also be an idea to refuse those that refuse military service a weapons permit basically those that are "conscientious objectors".

Piparskeggr

10-09-2011, 01:03 AM

Very interesting thread...

I voted for mild controls.

Being a Life Member of the NRA, one would think I'd be opposed to any controls at all, but the 2nd Amendment does state "...well regulated...," which in the English of the authors means properly trained under direction of the sovereign states that make up the federal union known as the United States.

I think that firearms safety training, along with instruction about civil liberties and responsibilities ought be mandatory starting in primary school. Education is the key to a child becoming a solid citizen in my view; peaceable, law-abiding and neighborly. That is how I was raised, with my dad supplementing my schooling vis a vis firearms and the responsibilities attendant to ownership and use thereof.

I was also taught that the only way I have any right to someone else's property is to buy it, or accept it when given to me.

A large part of the crime increase, as I see it, is the decline in manners and mutual respect in society, as well as the decrease in self-respect.

I am an armed citizen, as is my wife. Both of us were raised with firearms as a part of our education. I have also had extensive training with a variety of non-powder activated weaponry. Subsequently, I am never unarmed.

However, the first time I nearly killed someone, it was with my bare hands. The second, and last, time...a shootout in a military situation.

I have needed a firearm to defend myself in civilian life only twice. Both times were home invasions by individuals bent on robbing the house (once in Nebraska and once in Ohio). Both times racking a shell into the chamber of the 12 gauge stopped them cold.

Otherwise, I do not need any of the rifles, shotguns or pistols I own, nor does my wife need the contents of her gun safe. However, we are at liberty to exercise the right of keeping them, and bearing them as the Law allows.

As I stated above, I am in favor of some mild controls. Lawlessness only works in small groups where custom and tradition binds you close to each other.